Walk on walls

[Justinian]

Ok then...

Who here can model, code or draw??!? (And isn't already busy)

[Undo]

I can draw.

[MrBlack103]

I can't model. I can't draw. In fact, I'm useless at modding.

[draugaer]

I think a historically accurate WWI game would be extreamly boring and frustrating. Maybe as a grand strategy game it might not be too bad, but I don't think it would work very well for an RTS at the scale of 0AD or AoK.

The game play would be: select a whole mess of units, rush the enemy posistion, watch them get mowed down by artillery and machine guns, get tank technology, who ever has the most resources wins.

[MrBlack103]

Look, I've just done WWI in my history lessons at school and nothing much happened in terms of fighting. The entire Western front was just one giant stalemate.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Guys, ever heard of the Eastern Front? Battle of the Somme in the West? U-Boats? Battleships? Biplanes? Etcetera? Such a game would not be boring.

[Justinian]

No, I think it would ok.

You wouldn't have the same selection of factions (in fact I'd just go with the two), but in terms of strategy there are so many options. Mr. Black and draugaer are right. It would be a bit boring.

But with the rushing and the grand offensives, it could make an f***ing brilliant RTS.

Plus there would be tanks and aeroplanes which keep spontaneously exploding!

[Mythos_Ruler]

I can envision more than two factions myself.

Germans, Ottomans, British, French, Americans, Russians, off the top of my head.

[Justinian]

True, but how do you keep the French from attacking the Brits, or any other Allied nation.

My way is simpler.

You start off as either a member of the Central Powers (A-H, Germany, with Turks as later) or as a member of the Allies (Britain, France, Russia with Italy as later). Basically it will be like an offshoot system.

eg. Allies @ stage1: Britain, France, Russia @ stage2: Italy, Importing troops for the other (Brits get Canadians and Aussies), @ stage3: America, (R&D)

[MrBlack103]

Sound like a good idea, but there wouldn't be that much variation I don't think.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Hmmm, I'd rather go the AOE way and let players in multiplayer use whatever faction they want. It isn't a reenactment of the war, is it? Call it the Age of Imperialism, where the dying empires all vie for victory. WWI is just a backdrop, or basis for the technology. The single player campaign would focus on the war, but multiplayer would be a free for all.

[MrBlack103]

If you ask me, WWII would be much more interesting.

[Justinian]

If you ask me, WWII would be much more interesting.

Maybe so but it's been done past the point of death already.

[draugaer]

Hmmm, I'd rather go the AOE way and let players in multiplayer use whatever faction they want. It isn't a reenactment of the war, is it? Call it the Age of Imperialism, where the dying empires all vie for victory. WWI is just a backdrop, or basis for the technology. The single player campaign would focus on the war, but multiplayer would be a free for all.

I like this idea, its kind of been done already though (turn based format) it was called "Imperialism" and made by SSI. Its setting was basically early-mid 19th century to the end of WWI.

Basically includes all the major factions present in WWI as well.

Very complex and difficult but still very fun.

[MrBlack103]

Or how about we go back instead of forward and have prehistoric times?

The factions could be neanderthals and cro-magnons.

[Justinian]

Or how about we go back instead of forward and have prehistoric times?

The factions could be neanderthals and cro-magnons.

Not only would this be one of the worst games ever made, it would be nigh-impossible to make it realistic.

[MrBlack103]

Don't be so sure.

[Cassador_Chris]

Or how about we go back instead of forward and have prehistoric times?

The factions could be neanderthals and cro-magnons.

Hmm. I was actually planning a story, set in a semi-prehistoric, semi-fantasy setting. Had stuff like a Cro-Magnon empire based in a city very similar to Atlantis, other races like the Neanderthal and 'hobbit people' from Indonesia. But all low-tech, with some unique magic, etc. I never got that into planning it, but it's been sitting in my idea folder for some time.

Anyway, throughout middle school and early high school, I spent time developing an idea for an RTS. In it, I had players start with a few members of a tribe. Caves would be positioned around the map and act as the most basic town center/house/storage pit. The player would use the caves until they had enough supplies (taken entirely from animals killed) to build shelters, storage pits, and houses. From there it was just a matter of increasing your food surplus to increase your population, eventually allow for specialization of jobs and utilization of other resources through new technologies, which eventually allowed for empire. I find it satisfying to start so low, because it gives you a chance to really get attached to your people. Of course, my game was designed in a way where the player would have to save and return later, cause it took time to become powerful. I still like the idea though, and I would support a 0 AD game set with the Ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Hittites, Minoans, Myceneans, Hallstatt Celts, and others of pre-classical times.

As Always,

[Justinian]

I keep thinking about a game where you start off as a tribe, and evolve to being a Fully-Blown civilization through use of a tech tree which restricts use.

eg/ researching Domed Roofs disables researching Squared Off roofs, with advantages and disadvantages to both.

[plumo]

I also have an idea for a RTS game set in the prehistoric time.

4 tribes:

Forest people: wear antlers

Swamp people: move by kano and build houses on poles

Hill people : Live in tents and fortified settlements

Desert Tribe: live in huts made from zebra skin and ride zebra ( chieftain rides a rhino)

[Belisarivs]

Sorry, but frankly, would anybody play it?

There would be poor variety of units and therefore there would be no tactic and it would become boring.

[Cassador_Chris]

I keep thinking about a game where you start off as a tribe, and evolve to being a Fully-Blown civilization through use of a tech tree which restricts use.

eg/ researching Domed Roofs disables researching Squared Off roofs, with advantages and disadvantages to both.

I had something similar to this too. In my game the technologies you chose to research and the order in which you chose to research them determined your civilization. I then took this idea further and kept altering it, and eventually ended up with this free 'individual cultural development' strategy, where as the game progressed, you could choose to open, close, or regulate your borders. This way, a person with open borders often had the highest income from trade, but experienced a cultural enrichment. Although unique aspects/bonuses of your culture would weaken, you would gain the practices/bonues of other nearby cultures. In the opposite way, a nation with closed borders will solidify its uniqueness and thereby strengthen its unique traits, but would be unable to obtain the traits/bonuses of other nearby nations.

Anyway, the system would mean if you're the Egyptians, and you're in between a Greek player and a Persian player, you could open your borders and absorb the bonuses and weaknesses of other nations while watering down your own. Or, you could even promote trade with Greece and shun trade with Persia, making your culture a sort of infusion of Greece and Egyptian influences. Hence, your buildings would slowly begin to display both Egyptian and Greek influence. So, in the end, you could develop your very own unique culture by playing the game.

The only problem with this strategy though was that it would be something that would fit better in Spore, where you can design your own things, than in a historical RTS. It just wouldn't work because players wouldn't be able to reach the uniqueness required to substantiate cultural exchanges that actually mattered. The game would need a way for you to design your own culture, rather than use prescribed ones from history, in order for this to work.

So eventually I went back to something much like your version of tech trees restricting use, which is a good model.

As Always,

NOTE: I'm wondering what people think about allowing the route someone takes on a tech tree to determine their civilization, and whether it would enhance game play? I just thought about it now, but a game could offer this sort of 'civilization selection' to bring a sort of intrigue into the game. You know, players would try different ways of advancing along the tech tree to figure out what order/combination of technologies will unlock which civilization.

Okay, now I beg the gods for mercy for breaking the short post rule.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Cassador_Chris

[dankl__]

actually i had similar ideas except i placed the game in the darkages after rome fell and there were many barbaric tribes in europe. the player would then go through a series of techs and develop certain archetecture and specialized units

i think a tech tree that has options that close other ones is a great idea and should be implemented into a game. possibly an 0ad mod but it will require a lot of scripting

[Mythos_Ruler]

I'm afraid such a game would feel really generic. Not sure.

[dankl__]

ya i had that thought to the game would either be too simple (not enough techs) or have too many techs and present a huge growth curve